Method and system for network validation of information

ABSTRACT

Embodiments of the present application relate to a method for network validation of information, a system for network validation of information, and a computer program product for network validation of information. A method for network validation of information is provided. The method includes receiving verification information from a user, the verification information including a plurality of verification fields, determining a verification sequence of the plurality of verification fields based on a verification rule configuration and a verification scoring table, verifying a current verification field according to the verification sequence, verifying a next verification field in the event that the verification of the current verification field succeeds, and terminating verification in the event that the verification of the current verification field fails.

CROSS REFERENCE TO OTHER APPLICATIONS

This application is a continuation of co-pending U.S. patent applicationSer. No. 14/102,077, entitled METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR NETWORK VALIDATIONOF INFORMATION filed Dec. 10, 2013 which is incorporated herein byreference for all purposes, which is claims priority to People'sRepublic of China Patent Application No. 201210562666.7 entitled AMETHOD AND DEVICE FOR NETWORK VALIDATION OF INFORMATION, filed Dec. 21,2012 which is incorporated herein by reference for all purposes.

FIELD OF THE INVENTION

The present application relates to a method and system for networkvalidation of information.

BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION

On the Internet, network validation applications are often encounteredin conjunction with membership based websites. For example, a userenters a certain membership-based website and the membership-basedwebsite requires the user to enter a username, a password, emailaddress, and other such information. Only after the client and serververify that the membership information is free of error can the userenter the user interface of the members' web site.

Some common methods used in validating the membership informationinclude form verification and access rules verification. Using formverification as an example, after a user submits a form, clientverification is performed on the form and then server validation isperformed on the form. The client verification includes using technologysuch as JavaScript JQuery or HTML5 in order to verify form data at theclient of the user. For example, the technology determines whether theform-submitted data is empty, lengths are within range, etc. After theform data is verified as correct, the form data is packaged andsubmitted to the server. The server receives, unpacks, and verifies theform data one piece at a time according to the field display sequence inthe form or a configuration sequence.

Conventionally, data verification is accomplished through a scriptlanguage or other technical means for client verification. Having a fastdata verification response speed, results in a better experience for auser undergoing client verification. After issuing a verificationdemand, the user immediately obtains a verification result. However, theclient verification has limited security. Because a script source codeof the client is stored in the user browser page, the user is capable ofby-passing client verification via a prohibited page script or by usingbrowser tools to simulate action requests.

Therefore, in considering the security of the data, server verificationis more secure than client verification. After the user submits the datato the server used in verification, the server will re-verify the data.However, no particular requirements regarding field attributes and fieldsequences in verification of the data exist. Consequently, someverification data is wasted. The waste of verification data is even moreapparent with regard to complex, time-consuming verification steps.Moreover, conventionally, the overall verification process andverification results have insufficient data collection and counting. Forexample, on a network, a large number of users require verification ofthree fields (A, B and C) in a form, and the verification time for eachfield is 1 second. A rule is established that the form is approved whenall three fields are approved. If the error rate of A and B is zero, andthe error rate of C is very large, 3 seconds of verification time is tobe spent for a majority of users to obtain a notice of verificationfailure.

BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF THE DRAWINGS

Various embodiments of the invention are disclosed in the followingdetailed description and the accompanying drawings.

The drawings described here are intended to further the understanding ofthe present application, and form a part of this application. Theexemplary embodiments of the present application and the descriptionsthereof are intended to explain this application, and do not constituteinappropriate limitation of the present application. Among the drawings:

FIG. 1 is a flowchart of an embodiment of a method for networkvalidation of information.

FIG. 2A is a modular diagram of an embodiment of a system for networkvalidation of information.

FIG. 2B is a modular diagram of an embodiment of a processing module.

FIG. 3 is a block diagram of an embodiment of a computer system fornetwork validation of information.

FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram of an embodiment of a system for networkvalidation of information.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION

The invention can be implemented in numerous ways, including as aprocess; an apparatus; a system; a composition of matter; a computerprogram product embodied on a computer readable storage medium; and/or aprocessor, such as a processor configured to execute instructions storedon and/or provided by a memory coupled to the processor. In thisspecification, these implementations, or any other form that theinvention may take, may be referred to as techniques. In general, theorder of the steps of disclosed processes may be altered within thescope of the invention. Unless stated otherwise, a component such as aprocessor or a memory described as being configured to perform a taskmay be implemented as a general component that is temporarily configuredto perform the task at a given time or a specific component that ismanufactured to perform the task. As used herein, the term ‘processor’refers to one or more devices, circuits, and/or processing coresconfigured to process data, such as computer program instructions.

A detailed description of one or more embodiments of the invention isprovided below along with accompanying figures that illustrate theprinciples of the invention. The invention is described in connectionwith such embodiments, but the invention is not limited to anyembodiment. The scope of the invention is limited only by the claims andthe invention encompasses numerous alternatives, modifications andequivalents. Numerous specific details are set forth in the followingdescription in order to provide a thorough understanding of theinvention. These details are provided for the purpose of example and theinvention may be practiced according to the claims without some or allof these specific details. For the purpose of clarity, technicalmaterial that is known in the technical fields related to the inventionhas not been described in detail so that the invention is notunnecessarily obscured.

The method and system includes the following: receiving verificationinformation from a user, the verification information including aplurality of verification fields, determining a verification sequence ofthe plurality of verification fields based on a verification ruleconfiguration and a verification scoring table, verifying the pluralityof verification fields based on the verification sequence, and storingverification results into a verification results recording table andupdating the verification scoring table based on the verificationresults recording table.

The data verification includes multi-field verification rules,single-field verification rules, and verification dependencyrelationship configurations. In some embodiments, a plurality of fieldsconstitute a form.

For example, a form includes three verification fields: A, B and C. Inthe event that all three fields are verified, this means that the formis verified. Therefore, in some embodiments, the logical relationshipsof the three verification fields are expressed as A&&B&&C. A&&B&&Csignifies that A, B and C have parallel relationships. In the situationwhere A is verified, and only one of B and C is to be verified in orderfor the form to be verified, the logical relationship of the threeverification fields is expressed as A&&(B∥C). A&&(B∥C) represents that Aand B∥C are in a parallel relationship, the logical relationship beingexpressed by B∥C is (B or C) and the logical relationships between thevarious fields being referred to as a multi-field verification rule.

In some embodiments, when verification is performed on a single field,verification conditions include assessing whether the field is empty,whether the field satisfies a regular expression, whether the fieldexists within a database, etc. The verification conditions used toverify single fields are referred to as single-field verification rules.

In some embodiments, verification processes have one verificationcondition dependent on the result of another verification condition. Forexample, two verification fields, A and B, are to be verified. However,the verification condition for B requires the verification result of A.In such a situation, the verification sequence is to be specifiedthrough a configuration: first verify A and then verify B. Averification dependency relationship configuration is configured in amanner similar to this configuration.

FIG. 1 is a flowchart of an embodiment of a method for networkvalidation of information. In some embodiments, the method 100 isimplemented by a server 430 of FIG. 4 and comprises:

In 110, the server receives verification information from a user. Theverification information includes a plurality of verification fields.

In a given system, by design, each type of verification informationcorresponds to one form identifier, and each verification field of theverification information corresponds to one field identifier and theform identifier. The form identifier and field identifiers correspondingto the verification information are unique. The form identifiercorresponding to the verification information is unique within thesystem and the field identifiers corresponding to the verificationfields are unique within the scope of the verification information. Forexample, assuming that verification information A and verificationinformation B exist, the form identifier corresponding to verificationinformation A is 001 and the form identifier corresponding toverification information B is 002. Moreover, verification information Aincludes verification field C whose corresponding field identifier is111. Thus, in the system, only verification A corresponds to formidentifier 001, only verification information B corresponds to formidentifier 002, and in the verification information A, only verificationfield C corresponds to field identifier 111. As an aspect, averification field can occur in the verification information Bcorresponding to field identifier 111. The information verificationprocess proceeds in accordance with the uniqueness of the formidentifiers and the field identifiers. The form identifiers and thefield identifiers serve as bases used to verifying the verificationinformation and in performing further operations thereon. For example,verification rule configurations are acquired, verification scoringtables are acquired, and verification results recording tables areprocessed by looking up the verification rule configurations, theverification scoring tables, the verification results recording tables,statistical rules, and weight configurations which have form identifiersand field identifiers that are the same as the form identifiers and thefield identifiers.

In 120, the server determines a verification sequence of the pluralityof verification fields based on a verification rule configuration and averification scoring table.

In some embodiments, the verification rule configuration includes formidentifiers and field identifiers for the plurality of verificationfields and verification logical relationships between the plurality ofverification fields. The verification logical relationships includesingle-field verification rules, multi-field verification rules,verification dependency relationships, or any combination thereof. Theverification scoring table provides one or more parameters associatedwith each verification field. The one or more parameters include a formidentifier, a field identifier, a score, version number, meanverification time spent, mean verification time to pass, meanverification time to fail, verification pass rate, weights, or anycombination thereof. As an aspect, the verification rule configurationand the verification scoring table include, but are not limited toincluding, the above data. For example, serial numbers (IDs) of theplurality of verification fields are saved in the verification resultsrecording table. Moreover, an ID is unique whenever each verificationfield is verified. The ID is used to differentiate verification of eachverification field. In another example, recording times of the pluralityof the verification fields are saved in the verification resultsrecording table, etc.

For example, a form (for example, Form 1 below) including threeverification fields (A, B and C) to be verified. Form 1 also includes 2different sets of verification information from users A and B. Forexample, to verify the registration information that the user filled outon a registration page, user A submitted the form once, and user Bsubmitted the form another time. When the verification information isreceived, an ID is allocated to each verification field of theverification information: field A is 001, field B is 002, and field C is003. After the verification has been completed, the three IDs are storedin the verification results recording table. The second time that theverification information is verified, an ID is allocated to eachverification field of the verification information: field A is 004,field B is 005, and field C is 006. After the verification has beencompleted, the three IDs are stored in the verification resultsrecording table. As shown in Form 1 below, the ID for each verificationfield is different in the two verification processes. The formidentifier and field identifier of each verification field remains thesame. Therefore, the form identifier and the field identifier of eachverification field in the verification information are unique, and theID for each verification field is unique in each verification.

Form 1 First verification of the Second verification of the verificationinformation verification information Field Form Field Field Name IDidentifier identifier ID Form identifier identifier A 001 000 111 004000 111 B 002 000 112 005 000 112 C 003 000 113 006 000 113

The combination of the form identifier and the field identifiercorresponding to each verification field in the verification informationis unique. Therefore, acquiring, based on the form identifier and thefield identifiers, the verification rule configuration and theverification scoring table having the same the form identifier and thefield identifiers is possible. Each form identifier and field identifierhave a corresponding verification mechanism and verification scoringtable. Once a form identifier and a field identifier are known, acorresponding look up can be performed.

In some embodiments, the verification sequence for the plurality ofverification fields is obtained based on the verification logicalrelationships between the plurality of verification fields included inthe verification rule configuration. The verification scoring tableincludes the score of each verification field. For example, Table 1includes verification fields A, B, and C with scores 5, 9, and 2,respectively.

TABLE 1 VERIFICATION FIELD SCORE A 5 B 9 C 2

A further ordering of verification logic sequence for the plurality offields is carried out in low-to-high order of the scores, resulting inthe verification sequence for the plurality of verification fields. Inother words, the verification sequence is obtained based on theverification logical relationships between the verification fields,followed by adjusting the order of the fields according to theverification scores to obtain the final verification sequence.

In some embodiments, the further ordering of logical verificationsequence for the plurality of verification fields in low-to-high orderincludes: first, verify verification fields that have lower pass ratesbefore verify the verification fields that have higher pass rates. Thefurther ordering of the verification sequence for the plurality ofverification fields allows a quicker determination of whether theverification information has been verified. The further orderingincreases verification efficiency. In addition, the verification scoringtable includes weights relating to the plurality of verification fields.In some embodiments, the weights are set in advance to move someverification fields forward in the verification sequence and satisfyspecial verification goals.

Regarding the further ordering of the logical verification sequence forthe plurality of verification fields in low-to-high order, the orderingaccording to verification field score is only carried out betweenlogical relationships at the same level. For example, in a form that hasfive verification fields (A, B, C, D and E) to be verified, theverification logic sequence of the five verification fields isA&&B&&C&&(D∥E). Thus, the further ordering is carried out between all ofthe A, B, C and D∥E that contain the logical relationship “&&” orbetween D and E that contain the logical relationship “∥”.

In 130, the server verifies the plurality of verification fieldsaccording to the verification sequence.

The verification result for each verification field is verificationpassed or verification failed.

When the verification results for the plurality of verification fieldsis verification passed, the verification result for the verificationinformation is verification passed, and a notice is sent to the userstating that the verification information passed. When the verificationresult for the current verification field is verification failed, theverification result for the verification information is verificationfailed, and a notice stating that the verification information hasfailed is sent to the user along with a revision suggestion (e.g.,“Verification Field 3 is incorrect. Please try again.”). In someembodiments, the user revises the verification information according tothe revision suggestion and re-submits the verification informationuntil the verification result of the verification information isverification passed.

In 140, the server terminates verification when verification of thecurrent verification field fails.

In some embodiments, the server terminates verification of the one ormore fields that have not yet participation in verification duringverification of the plurality of verification fields, in the event thatthe current verification field fails verification. In this example, theterminating of the verification effectively reduces the verificationtime and increases verification efficiency.

For example, a form containing three verification fields (A, B and C)undergoes verification. In a first example, if the verification sequencefor the three verification fields is A&&B&&C, and if all theverification results that are obtained for A, B and C are verificationpassed, the verification result for the verification information isverification passed. Subsequently, the verification results for thethree verification fields A, B and C are stored in the verificationresults recording table. In a second example, in the event that A passesverification and then B undergoes verification, but B failsverification. Verification is then terminated after B failsverification, and C does not undergo verification. In this case, theverification result for the form is verification failed. Theverification results for the verification fields are: A verificationpassed, B verification failed. The verification results for the twoverification fields A and B are stored in the verification resultsrecording table. C does not undergo verification, and thus theverification result of C is not to be stored. Of course, otherverification results are generated. The repetition of the otherverification results is omitted for conciseness.

In 150, the server stores verification results in a verification resultsrecording table, and updates the verification scoring table based on theverification results recording table.

The server acquires the verification results recording table having samethe form identifier and the field identifiers based on the formidentifier and the field identifiers corresponding to the plurality ofverification fields in the verification information, and the serverstores the verification result of each verification field in theverification results recording table.

In addition, in some embodiments, while the verification information isbeing verified, the time spent verifying each verification field iscounted and is also stored in the verification results recording table.When the verification time spent and the verification results are beingstored, previous verification times spent and verification results thatwere already stored in the verification results recording table areretained. In some embodiments, the verification time spent and theverification result for each verification field are stored immediatelyafter the previous ones. Thus, a plurality of verification results and aplurality of verification times spent corresponding to the same formidentifier are recorded in one verification results recording table.

The verification results and the verification times spent for theplurality of verification fields are stored so that the verificationresults recording table can be used to update the verification scoringtable and to accumulate verification data for the verification of theverification information. In this way, the process of verifying theverification information can be adjusted based on statisticalinformation and be made more efficient.

In some embodiments, scheduled tasks or other such technical means areused to preset tasks—the processing time points for configuration tasksand the time interval for data that is to be processed with each task. Atime point relates to a starting time for a configuration task to start.In other words, the statistical start time, the statistical end time,and the task processing time are preset. Moreover, the verificationresults recording table between the statistical start time and thestatistical end time is extracted during the task processing time. Theverification results recording table is subjected to statisticalcounting and calculations according to the statistical rules and weightconfigurations. The statistical start time and the statistical end timeare used to define a time interval for data that is to be processed witheach task. Furthermore, at the task processing time, the time intervalis determined from the statistical start time and the statistical endtime stored in the verification results recording table.

Please note that the statistical start time and the statistical end timeare the statistical start time and the statistical end time for eachverification field of the verification information.

In addition, in some embodiments, when a large quantity of verificationinformation exists, historical data of the verification resultsrecording table and the verification scoring table within a certainrange is periodically deleted to reduce the amount of stored data inorder to add other scheduled tasks. For example, every day at apredetermined time, historical data that is older than 3 days isdeleted. The periodic deleting of the historical data prevents theamount of stored data from becoming too large and thus affectingquerying efficiency and the amount of storage space occupied.

The server acquires weights having the same form identifier and thefield identifiers from among the statistical rules and weightconfigurations based on the form identifier and field identifiers of theverification results recording table. The acquired weights are also theweights for the verification fields corresponding to the form identifierand the field identifiers.

In some embodiments, the statistical rules and weight configurationsfurther include counting and calculating rules. The parametersassociated with each verification field are counted and calculatedaccording to the counting and calculating rules. The parameters for eachverification field include: counting mean verification time spent, meanverification time to pass, mean verification time to fail, weights, thecalculated score, the verification pass rate for each verificationfield, or any combination thereof. For example:

Verification field score=Mean verification time spent×Verification passrate−Weight;

Verification pass rate=Verification pass data/Total verification volume.The verification pass rate corresponds to the rate in which verificationwas successful. For example, assuming that field A has been verified 10times, where there are 8 successes and 2 failures. Accordingly, theverification pass rate is 80%. In some embodiments, the weights arepreset and used to influence the verification sequences.

For example, verification information of a form includes threeverification fields (A, B and C), and the verification logic sequencefor the three verification fields is A&&B&&C. On the first day, 10,000people register as members through this form. A scheduled task will beto read the verification results recording table for the 10,000 people.In accordance with the counting and calculating rules, the weights ofthe verification fields are to be counted, and the scores for theverification fields are to be calculated. In addition, the weights areto be preset to 0.

9,000 of the 10,000 people pass A verification, with a mean verificationtime spent of 100 ms. Thus, the verification pass rate corresponds to90.0000%, and the score corresponds to 90.0000. In addition,verification failed notices are sent to the 1,000 people who failedverification along with revision recommendations.

8,500 of the 9,000 people who passed A verification also pass Bverification, with a mean verification time spent of 5 ms. Thus, theverification pass rate corresponds to 94.4444%, and the scorecorresponds to 4.7222. In addition, verification failed notices are sentto the 500 people who failed verification along with revisionrecommendations.

5,000 of the 8,500 people who passed B verification pass C verification,with a mean verification time of 500 ms. Thus, the verification passrate corresponds to 58.8235%, and the score corresponds to 294.1175. Inaddition, verification failed notices are sent to the 3,500 people whofailed verification along with revision recommendations.

When, on the second day, the form verification information for 10,000people again undergoes verification, the first-day scores for the threeverification fields are used to order the verification logic sequence ofthe three verification fields from low to high. Thus, the verificationsequence of B&&A&&C is obtained.

Thus, the first-day total verification time spent is 100 ms×10,000people+5 ms×9,000 people+500 ms×8,500 people=5,295,000 ms. With the passrate remaining the same, the second-day total verification time spent is5 ms×10,000 people+100 ms×(10,000 people×94.4444%)+500 ms×(10,000people×94.4444%×58.8235%)=3,772,219.0817 ms. A comparison between the 2total verification times spent illustrates that adjusting theverification logic sequence decreases the total verification time spentand increases the verification efficiency for the three verificationfields.

Other circumstances may be present. Therefore, in some embodiments, theverification sequence is altered by setting weights. For example, aproblem of system performance overload as a consequence of verifying Acould exist. To avoid this problem of system performance overload, theverification sequence is adjusted by setting a weight for A. The weightfor A is set at “−300” by an administrator. The value of the weight ischosen empirically based on experience. The scores for the threeverification fields are calculated using the formula above: Acorresponds to 390, B corresponds to 4.7222, and C corresponds to294.1175. Therefore, the verification sequence based on the verificationlogic sequence becomes B&&C&&A. By setting a weight for A, the positionof A is moved to the end of the verification sequence. The moving of theposition of A to the end of the verification sequence reduces thelikelihood that the verifying of A will cause the problem of systemperformance overload. The moving of the position of A indirectly reducesresources spent on verification and increases verification efficiency.

If the verification results recording table between the statisticalstart time and statistical end time contains a plurality of verificationresults and a plurality of verification times spent, the mean values ofthe plurality of pieces of data will be counted and calculated.

Possible scenarios include validating picture content, document content,or forms involving larger expenditures of resources. Verification data,for example, mean verification time spent, verification pass rate, andscores, is accumulated during the verification process. Using theaccumulated data, the verification process is adjusted and optimized:verification time is reduced, verification expenditures are reduced, andverification efficiency is increased.

In some embodiments, the counting and calculating of the parametersassociated with each verification field further includes storing theparameters associated with each verification field into a verificationscoring table. Prior to the storing operation, the server queries theverification scoring table containing the same form identifier as theparameters and then stores parameters which are associated with eachverification field in positions immediately following the parametersthat were already stored, while retaining the historical versions of theverification scoring table that were already stored.

When storing the parameters, the server by default acquires a newversion number and stores the parameters and the new version number inthe verification scoring table. The principle relating to the versionnumbers is similar to the principle behind software versions. Forexample, there are sets of logic relating to different version numbers,for example, v1.0, v2.0, v3.0. Each time the parameters are saved, whichcorresponds to updating the scoring table, a new version number for theupdated scoring table is also saved. For example, the server uses a timestamp to create a new version number and thus ensure that versionnumbers are unique within the same verification information. Because ofchanges in the business operating environment, data, or any combinationthereof, the verification scoring table has different versions.Therefore, in 120 of FIG. 1, the acquiring of the verification ruleconfiguration and the verification scoring table with the same formidentifiers and the field identifiers, the server automatically comparesthe version numbers and uses the verification scoring table with themost recent version number to further order the verification logicsequence for the plurality of verification fields. For example, thefirst verification scoring table version number stored is 001, and thesecond verification scoring table version number stored is 002. Whenacquiring the verification scoring table, the server compares the twoversion numbers 001 and 002. Since version number 002 is the latestversion number of the two version numbers, the acquisition result is theverification scoring table with the version number 002.

In some embodiments, under some circumstances (when, for example, aproblem occurs in the counting and calculating process that requiresemergency repair), a historical version number of the verificationscoring table is used for further ordering of the verification logicsequence for the plurality of verification fields. Thus, in 120, theacquiring of the verification rule configuration and the verificationscoring table with the same form identifiers and the field identifiersuses the version number as a condition for acquiring the verificationscoring table. Thus, the version number is used to acquire theverification scoring table of any version number.

If, in the some embodiments, the form identifier and field identifierscorresponding to the plurality of verification fields in theverification information are used in verification for the first time,then no verification scoring table and no verification results recordingtable for the verification information exists. In 120, the formidentifier and the field identifiers serve as conditions for acquiringthe verification rules configuration and the verification scoring tableand the verification scoring table has null values. In 130, theplurality of verification fields are verified based on a verificationsequence. In 150, a form identifier, field identifiers, verificationresults, and verification times spent for the plurality of verificationfields are stored into the verification results recording table. Afterthe data undergo counting and calculation, the form identifier, thefield identifiers, statistical start times, statistical end times, meanverification times spent, mean verification time to pass, meanverification time to fail, scores, verification pass rates, and weightsfor the plurality of verification fields are stored in the verificationscoring table.

In some embodiments, the verification information is a singleverification field. The single verification field also includes uniqueform identifiers and field identifiers. As an aspect, the plurality ofverification fields of the verification information is understood as therepackaging of single verification fields. Verification of the pluralityof verification fields is understood as being carried out on afoundation of single verification fields.

FIG. 2A is a modular diagram of an embodiment of a system for networkvalidation of information. In some embodiments, the system 200 includesa receiving module 210, a ranking module 220, a verifying module 230, acontrol module 240, and a processing module 250.

The receiving module 210 receives verification information from users.The verification information includes a plurality of verificationfields.

The ranking module 220 determines a verification sequence of theplurality of verification fields based on a verification ruleconfiguration and a verification scoring table.

The verification rule configuration and the verification scoring tablehaving the same form identifiers and field identifiers are acquiredbased on form identifiers and field identifiers corresponding to theplurality of verification fields in the verification information.

In some embodiments, a verification logic sequence for the plurality ofverification fields is obtained based on the verification ruleconfiguration. Based on the score and weight of each verification fieldin the verification scoring table, a further ordering of theverification logic sequence for the plurality of verification fields isperformed to obtain the verification sequence for the plurality ofverification fields.

The verification logic sequence for the plurality of verification fieldsis modified using the scores and weights of the verification fields. Insome embodiments, the modification of the verification logic sequencefor the plurality of verification fields increases verificationefficiency.

The verifying module 230 verifies the plurality of verification fieldsaccording to the verification sequence.

When the plurality of verification fields undergo verification and theverification results for the plurality of verification fields areverification passed, the verification result for the verificationinformation is verification passed, and a notice is sent to the userstating that the verification information passed. When the verificationresult for the current verification field is verification failed, theverification result for the verification information is verificationfailed, and a notice stating that the verification information hasfailed is sent to the user along with a revision suggestion.

The control module 240 terminates verification in the event thatverification of the current verification field fails.

The control module 240 terminates verification of the one or more fieldsthat have not yet taken part in verification during verification of theplurality of verification fields, as an example, when the currentverification field fails verification. In this way, the terminating ofverification effectively reduces the verification time and increasesverification efficiency.

When the verification failed occurs for the current verification field,verification is terminated. The verification time is thus reduced, andverification efficiency is increased.

The processing module 250 stores verification results in a verificationresults recording table and updates the verification scoring table basedon the verification results recording table.

The processing module 250 acquires the verification results recordingtable having the same form identifier and field identifiers based on theform identifier and the field identifiers corresponding to the pluralityof verification fields in the verification information, and theprocessing module 250 stores the verification result of eachverification field in the verification results recording table.

FIG. 2B is a modular diagram of an embodiment of a processing module. Insome embodiments, the processing module 250 includes an extractingmodule 2510 and a counting and calculating module 2520.

The extracting module 2510 presets the statistical start time, thestatistical end time, and the task processing time for the verificationinformation, which are used to extract the verification resultsrecording table at the task processing time between the statisticalstart time and the statistical end time.

The counting and calculating module 2520 performs statistical countingand calculating on the verification results recording table based onstatistical rules and weight configurations. Furthermore, in someembodiments, the counting and calculating module 2520 acquires weightshaving the same form identifiers and the field identifiers from amongthe statistical rules and weight configurations based on the formidentifiers and field identifiers of the verification results recordingtable. In some embodiments, the statistical rules and weightconfigurations further include counting and calculating rules.Parameters associated with each verification field are counted andcalculated based on the counting and calculating rules. The parametersinclude form identifiers, field identifiers, scores, version numbers,mean verification times spent, mean verification time to pass, meanverification time to fail, verification pass rate, weights, etc. In someembodiments, the counting and calculating module 2520 also queriesverification scoring tables that have the same form identifiers as theparameters and stores the parameters associated with each verificationfield into the verification scoring tables.

Implementations of the various modules included in the system asdescribed according to FIGS. 2A and 2B corresponds to implementations ofthe method. The method embodiment for network validation of informationas shown in FIG. 1 has already been described. Therefore, repetition ofdescriptions of the various modules is omitted for conciseness.

The method and system can be applied to any equipment that validatesinformation. In some embodiments, equipment that validates informationincludes, but is not limited to: desktop computers, mobile terminalequipment, laptop computers, tablet computers, and personal digitalassistants.

The modules described above can be implemented as software componentsexecuting on one or more processors, as hardware such as programmablelogic devices and/or Application Specific Integrated Circuits designedto perform certain functions or a combination thereof. In someembodiments, the modules can be embodied by a form of software productswhich can be stored in a nonvolatile storage medium (such as opticaldisk, flash storage device, mobile hard disk, etc.), including a numberof instructions for making a computer device (such as personalcomputers, servers, network equipment, etc.) implement the methodsdescribed in the embodiments of the present application. The modules maybe implemented on a single device or distributed across multipledevices. The functions of the modules may be merged into one another orfurther split into multiple sub-modules.

FIG. 3 is a block diagram of an embodiment of a computer system fornetwork validation of information. In some embodiments, the computersystem 300 includes a CPU (central processing unit) 305, RAM (randomaccess memory) 310, ROM (read-only memory) 315, system bus 320, harddisk controller 325, keyboard controller 330, serial port controller335, parallel port controller 340, display controller 345, hard disk350, keyboard 355, serial peripheral equipment 360, parallel peripheralequipment 365, and display device 370. Among these components, thefollowing are connected to the system bus 320: CPU 305, RAM 310, ROM315, hard disk controller 325, keyboard controller 330, serialcontroller 335, parallel controller 340, and display controller 345. Thehard disk 350 is connected to the hard disk controller 325. The keyboard355 is connected to the keyboard controller 330. The serial peripheralequipment 360 is connected to the serial port controller 335. Theparallel peripheral equipment 365 is connected to the parallel portcontroller 340, and the display device 370 is connected to the displaycontroller 345.

FIG. 4 is a schematic diagram of an embodiment of a system for networkvalidation of information. The system 400 includes a plurality ofclients 410 and a server 430 connected via a network 420.

In some embodiments, one of the clients 410 sends the server 430 a formfor verification across the network 420. The server 430 stores theverification scoring table and/or the verification results recordingtable in a database 440 via the network 420.

The units described above can be implemented as software componentsexecuting on one or more general purpose processors, as hardware such asprogrammable logic devices and/or Application Specific IntegratedCircuits designed to perform certain functions or a combination thereof.In some embodiments, the units can be embodied by a form of softwareproducts which can be stored in a nonvolatile storage medium (such asoptical disk, flash storage device, mobile hard disk, etc.), including anumber of instructions for making a computer device (such as personalcomputers, servers, network equipment, etc.) implement the methodsdescribed in the embodiments of the present invention. The units may beimplemented on a single device or distributed across multiple devices.The functions of the units may be merged into one another or furthersplit into multiple sub-units.

The methods or algorithmic steps described in light of the embodimentsdisclosed herein can be implemented using hardware, processor-executedsoftware modules, or combinations of both. Software modules can beinstalled in random-access memory (RAM), memory, read-only memory (ROM),electrically programmable ROM, electrically erasable programmable ROM,registers, hard drives, removable disks, CD-ROM, or any other forms ofstorage media known in the technical field.

Although the foregoing embodiments have been described in some detailfor purposes of clarity of understanding, the invention is not limitedto the details provided. There are many alternative ways of implementingthe invention. The disclosed embodiments are illustrative and notrestrictive.

What is claimed is:
 1. A method for network validation of information,comprising: receiving verification information from a user, theverification information including a plurality of verification fields;determining a verification sequence of the plurality of verificationfields based on a verification rule configuration and a verificationscoring table; verifying a current verification field according to theverification sequence; verifying a next verification field in the eventthat the verification of the current verification field succeeds; andterminating verification in the event that the verification of thecurrent verification field fails.
 2. The method as described in claim 1,wherein the verification information corresponds to a form identifier,the plurality of verification fields correspond to a respectiveplurality of field identifiers, each form identifier is unique, and eachfield identifier is unique.
 3. The method as described in claim 1,wherein: the verification rule configuration provides verification logicrelationships between the plurality of verification fields; and theverification scoring table provides one or more parameters associatedwith each verification field.
 4. The method as described in claim 1,wherein: the verification rule configuration provides verification logicrelationships between the plurality of verification fields; theverification scoring table provides one or more parameters associatedwith each verification field; and the determining of the verificationsequence of the plurality of verification fields based on theverification rule configuration and the verification scoring tablecomprises: acquiring the verification rule configuration and theverification scoring table having the same form identifier and the samefield identifiers based on the form identifier and the field identifiercorresponding to the plurality of verification fields in theverification information; obtaining a verification logic sequencebetween the plurality of verification fields based on the verificationrule configuration; and performing a further ordering of theverification logic sequence of the plurality of verification fieldsbased on scores and weights of the verification fields in theverification scoring table.
 5. The method as described in claim 1,wherein the verifying of the current verification field according to theverification sequence further comprises: in the event that all of theverification results of the plurality of verification fields passverification, determining that a verification result of the verificationinformation indicates that to verification has passed, and sending anotice to the user indicating that the verification information haspassed verification; and in the event that the current verificationfield fails, determining that the verification result of theverification information is verification failed, and sending a notice tothe user indicating that the verification information has failed alongwith a revision suggestion.
 6. The method as described in claim 1,further comprising: storing a verification result in a verificationresults recording table and updating the verification scoring tablebased on the verification results recording table, wherein theverification results recording table stores a verification result ofeach verification field.
 7. The method as described in claim 1, furthercomprising: storing a verification result in a verification resultsrecording table and updating the verification scoring table based on theverification results recording table, wherein the verification resultsrecording table stores a verification result of each verification field;and wherein the storing of the verification result in the verificationresults recording table further comprises: acquiring the verificationresults recording table having the same form identifier and the samefield identifiers based on the form identifier and the field identifierscorresponding to the plurality of verification fields in theverification information and storing the verification results of theverification fields in the verification results recording table.
 8. Themethod as described in claim 1, further comprising: storing averification result in a verification results recording table andupdating the verification scoring table based on the verificationresults recording table, wherein the verification results recordingtable stores a verification result of each verification field; whereinthe storing of the verification result in the verification resultsrecording table further comprises: acquiring the verification resultsrecording table having the same form identifier and the same fieldidentifiers based on the form identifier and the field identifierscorresponding to the plurality of verification fields in theverification information and storing the verification results of theverification fields in the verification results recording table; and iswherein the storing of the verification result in the verificationresults recording table further comprises: retaining the verificationresults that have already been stored.
 9. The method as described inclaim 1, further comprising: storing a verification result in averification results recording table and updating the verificationscoring table based on the verification results recording table, whereinthe verification results recording table stores a verification result ofeach verification field; and wherein the updating of the verificationscoring table based on the verification results recording table furthercomprises: extracting the verification results recording table at a taskprocessing time between a statistical start time and a statistical endtime; and performing data counting and calculations on the verificationresults recording table according to statistical rules and weightconfigurations.
 10. The method as described in claim 1, furthercomprising: storing a verification result in a verification resultsrecording table and updating the verification scoring table based on theverification results recording table, wherein the verification resultsrecording table stores a verification result of each verification field;wherein the updating of the verification scoring table based on theverification results recording table further comprises: extracting theverification results recording table at a task processing time between astatistical start time and a statistical end time; and performing datacounting and calculations on the verification results recording tableaccording to statistical rules and weight configurations; and whereinthe extracting of the verification results recording table at the taskprocessing time between the statistical start time and the statisticalend time comprises: presetting the statistical start time, thestatistical end time, and the task processing time.
 11. The method asdescribed in claim 1, further comprising: storing a verification resultin a verification results recording table and updating the verificationscoring table based on the verification results recording table, whereinthe verification results recording table stores a verification result ofeach verification field; and wherein the updating of the verificationscoring table based on the verification results recording table furthercomprises: extracting the verification results recording table at a taskprocessing time between a statistical start time and a statistical endtime; and performing data counting and calculations on the verificationresults recording table according to statistical rules and weightconfigurations; and wherein the performing of the data counting andcalculations comprises: acquiring weights having the same formidentifier and the same field identifiers from among the statisticalrules and weight configurations based on the form identifier and thefield identifiers of the verification results recording table, whereinthe statistical rules and weight configurations include counting andcalculating rules, and counting and calculating parameters associatedwith the verification fields according to the counting and calculatingrules.
 12. The method as described in claim 1, further comprising:storing a verification result in a verification results recording tableand updating the s verification scoring table based on the verificationresults recording table; querying the verification scoring tablecontaining the same form identifier as the parameters; and storingparameters associated with the verification fields into the verificationscoring table, wherein the verification results recording table stores averification result of each verification field; and wherein the updatingof the verification scoring table based on the verification resultsrecording table further comprises: extracting the verification resultsrecording table at a task processing time between a statistical starttime and a statistical end time; and performing data counting andcalculations on the verification results recording table according tostatistical rules and weight configurations; and wherein the performingof the data counting and calculations comprises: acquiring weightshaving the same form identifier and the same field identifiers fromamong the statistical rules and weight configurations based on the formidentifier and the field identifiers of the verification resultsrecording table, wherein the statistical rules and weight configurationsinclude counting and calculating rules, and counting and calculatingparameters associated with the verification fields according to thecounting and calculating rules.
 13. A system for network validation ofinformation, comprising: at least one processor configured to: receiveverification information from a user, the verification informationincluding a plurality of verification fields; determine a verificationsequence of the plurality of verification fields based on a verificationrule configuration and a verification scoring table; verify a currentverification field according to the verification sequence; verify a nextverification field in the event that the verification of the currentverification field succeeds; and terminate verification in the eventthat the verification of the current verification field fails; and amemory coupled to the at least one processor and configured to providethe at least one processor with instructions.
 14. The system asdescribed in claim 13, wherein the determining of the verificationsequence of the plurality of verification fields based on theverification rule configuration and the verification scoring tablecomprises: acquire the verification rule configuration and theverification scoring table having the same form identifier and the samefield identifiers based on the form identifier and the field identifiercorresponding to the plurality of verification fields in theverification information; obtain a verification logic sequence betweenthe plurality of verification fields based on the verification ruleconfiguration; and perform a further ordering of the verification logicsequence of the plurality of verification fields based on scores andweights of the verification fields in the verification scoring table.15. The system as described in claim 13, wherein the verifying of thecurrent verification field according to the verification sequencefurther comprises: in the event that all of the verification results ofthe plurality of verification fields pass verification, determine that averification result of the verification information is verificationpassed, and send a notice to the user indicating that the verificationinformation has passed verification; and in the event that the currentverification field fails, determine that the verification result of theverification information is verification failed, and send a notice tothe user indicating that the verification information has failed alongwith a revision suggestion.
 16. The system as described in claim 13,wherein the at least one processor is further configured to: store averification result in a verification results recording table and updatethe verification scoring table based on the verification resultsrecording table, wherein the verification results recording table storesa verification result of each verification field.
 17. The system asdescribed in claim 13, wherein the at least one processor is furtherconfigured to: store a verification result in a verification resultsrecording table and update the verification scoring table based on theverification results recording table; wherein the verification resultsrecording table stores a verification result of each verification field;and wherein the storing of the verification result in the verificationresults recording table further comprises to: acquire the verificationresults recording table having the same form identifier and the samefield identifiers based on the form identifier and the field identifierscorresponding to the plurality of verification fields in theverification information and store the verification results of theverification fields in the verification results recording is table. 18.The system as described in claim 13, wherein: the at least one processoris further configured to: store a verification result in a verificationresults recording table and update the verification scoring table basedon the verification results recording table; the verification resultsrecording table stores a verification result of each verification field;and the updating of the verification scoring table based on theverification results recording table further comprises to: extract theverification results recording table at a task processing time between astatistical start time and a statistical end time; and perform datacounting and calculations on the verification results recording tableaccording to statistical rules and weight configurations.
 19. The systemas described in claim 13, wherein: the at least one processor is furtherconfigured to: store a verification result in a verification resultsrecording table and update the verification scoring table based on theverification results recording table; the verification results recordingtable stores a verification result of each verification field; theupdating of the verification scoring table based on the verificationresults recording table further comprises to: extract the verificationresults recording table at a task processing time between a statisticalstart time and a statistical end time; and perform data counting andcalculations on the verification results recording table according tostatistical rules and weight configurations; and the extracting of theverification results recording table at the task processing time betweenthe statistical start time and the statistical end time comprises to:preset the statistical start time, the statistical end time, and thetask processing time.
 20. The system as described in claim 13, wherein:the at least one processor is further configured to: store averification result in a verification results recording table and updatethe verification scoring table based on the verification resultsrecording table; the verification results recording table stores averification result of each verification field; the updating of theverification scoring table based on the verification results recordingtable further comprises to: extract the verification results recordingtable at a task processing time between a statistical start time and astatistical end time; and perform data counting and calculations on theverification results recording table according to statistical rules andweight configurations; and the performing of the data counting andcalculations comprises to: acquire weights having the same formidentifier and the same field identifiers from among the statisticalrules and weight configurations based on the form identifier and thefield identifiers of the verification results recording table, whereinthe statistical rules and weight configurations include counting andcalculating rules, and counting and calculating parameters associatedwith the verification fields according to the counting and calculatingrules.
 21. The system as described in claim 13, wherein: the at leastone processor is further configured to: store a verification result in averification results recording table and update the verification scoringtable based on the verification results recording table; query theverification scoring table containing the same form identifier as theparameters; and store parameters associated with the verification fieldsinto the verification scoring table; the verification results recordingtable stores a verification result of each verification field; theupdating of the verification scoring table based on the verificationresults recording table further comprises to: extract the verificationresults recording table at a task processing time between a statisticalstart time and a statistical end time; and perform data counting andcalculations on the verification results recording table according tostatistical rules and weight configurations; and the performing of thedata counting and calculations comprises to: acquire weights having thesame form identifier and the same field identifiers from among thestatistical rules and weight configurations based on the form identifierand the field identifiers of the verification results recording table,wherein the statistical rules and weight configurations include countingand calculating rules, and counting and calculating parametersassociated with the verification fields according to the counting andcalculating rules.
 22. A computer program product for network validationof information, the computer program product being embodied in atangible non-transitory computer readable storage medium and comprisingcomputer instructions for: receiving verification information from auser, the verification information including a plurality of verificationfields; determining a verification sequence of the plurality ofverification fields based on a verification rule configuration and averification scoring table; verifying a current verification fieldaccording to the verification sequence; verifying a next verificationfield in the event that the verification of the current verificationfield succeeds; and terminating verification in the event that theverification of the current verification field fails.